Seiberling, J. F., & Co. v. Tatlock
Indiana Court of Appeals
From the Washington Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.
This action was brought by the appellant upon a parol contract to recover the purchase price of a reaping machine, sold by it to appellee. To the complaint, which is in two paragraphs, the appellee filed an answer in several paragraphs and a counterclaim.
The first, second, third and -fourth specifications of error assigned are made to question the rulings of the court below in overruling the demurrers tó the third, fourth and sixth paragraphs of appellee’s answer and his counterclaim. Counsel for appellant, after considerable argument and the presentation of numerous authorities to show that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Chicago & Erie Railroad v. BranyanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1894
- Sloan v. Lick Creek & New Bethel Gravel Road Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1898
3Cited by6 opinions
- Miller v. StevensIndiana Court of Appeals · 1899
- Hauschild v. RothIndiana Supreme Court · 1914
- Seiberling & Co. v. RodmanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1896
- J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Walters Bros.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1922
- Bright v. JusticeIndiana Court of Appeals · 1908
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.